Fiorentino 1962

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   47  0.6439  0.0045  0.0745  0.0738  0.0848  0.07
Ashkenazy 1981   34  0.6949  0.0038  0.0741  0.0735  0.0943  0.08
Beliavsky 2004   57  0.588  0.0056  0.0559  0.0547  0.0754  0.06
BenOr 1989   11  0.7619  0.0015  0.1612  0.5524  0.2719  0.39
Biret 1990   46  0.6526  0.0043  0.0653  0.0630  0.1540  0.09
Blet 2003   14  0.7413  0.0013  0.168  0.625  0.614  0.61
Block 1995   31  0.7040  0.0033  0.1233  0.1224  0.3530  0.20
Brailowsky 1960   54  0.604  0.0055  0.0460  0.0425  0.3137  0.11
Chiu 1999   24  0.7232  0.0020  0.0824  0.3729  0.2626  0.31
Clidat 1994   30  0.7014  0.0023  0.0822  0.4017  0.3620  0.38
Cohen 1997   62  0.4041  0.0063  0.0655  0.0646  0.0560  0.05
Coop 1987   5  0.8127  0.005  0.525  0.7217  0.486  0.59
Cortot 1951   61  0.479  0.0062  0.0461  0.0463  0.0364  0.03
Czerny 1949   21  0.7262  0.0012  0.1713  0.5322  0.3814  0.45
Czerny 1949b   18  0.7363  0.0014  0.1317  0.5018  0.4113  0.45
Ezaki 2006   9  0.777  0.0010  0.1711  0.5527  0.2916  0.40
Falvay 1989   8  0.7710  0.006  0.219  0.6021  0.4211  0.50
Ferenczy 1958   49  0.6342  0.0028  0.1030  0.237  0.6518  0.39
Fiorentino 1962   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Fliere 1977   10  0.7720  0.009  0.247  0.6917  0.515  0.59
Fou 1978   16  0.733  0.0025  0.0926  0.3537  0.0931  0.18
Francois 1956   51  0.6164  0.0054  0.0462  0.0461  0.0365  0.03
Hatto 1997   53  0.6043  0.0050  0.0646  0.0654  0.0655  0.06
Horowitz 1971   50  0.6121  0.0053  0.0556  0.0551  0.0561  0.05
Horowitz 1985   59  0.5428  0.0059  0.0651  0.0635  0.0946  0.07
Indjic 2001   52  0.6050  0.0051  0.0744  0.0734  0.0850  0.07
Kapell 1951   15  0.7365  0.0026  0.1125  0.3629  0.2427  0.29
Kiepura 1999   20  0.7311  0.0030  0.1228  0.2819  0.4321  0.35
Kilenyi 1937   7  0.7822  0.007  0.2810  0.6023  0.469  0.53
Kissin 1993   13  0.7551  0.0016  0.2216  0.5149  0.0534  0.16
Kitain 1937   63  0.3715  0.0061  0.0363  0.0358  0.0463  0.03
Kushner 1990   33  0.6929  0.0036  0.1135  0.1144  0.0641  0.08
Levy 1951   56  0.5930  0.0058  0.0743  0.0742  0.0652  0.06
Luisada 1990   12  0.7552  0.0011  0.1614  0.538  0.588  0.55
Lushtak 2004   32  0.6953  0.0034  0.1036  0.1053  0.0549  0.07
Lympany 1968   40  0.6833  0.0044  0.0649  0.0635  0.0944  0.07
Magaloff 1977   35  0.6954  0.0046  0.0937  0.0951  0.0647  0.07
Magaloff 1977b   37  0.6834  0.0047  0.0647  0.0640  0.0757  0.06
Magin 1975   4  0.8112  0.004  0.356  0.7212  0.573  0.64
Milkina 1970   45  0.6655  0.0042  0.0652  0.0634  0.0753  0.06
Mohovich 1999   41  0.685  0.0040  0.0648  0.0627  0.2536  0.12
Nadelmann 1956   44  0.6635  0.0037  0.0839  0.0833  0.0942  0.08
Ohlsson 1999   22  0.7256  0.0021  0.0721  0.4021  0.3022  0.35
Olejniczac 1990   1  0.991  0.991  0.981  1.001  1.001  1.00
Olejniczak 1991   2  0.922  0.002  0.922  0.962  0.972  0.96
Osinska 1989   6  0.7823  0.008  0.254  0.7828  0.2912  0.48
Paderewski 1912   38  0.6816  0.0039  0.0650  0.0630  0.1339  0.09
Perahia 1994   60  0.4931  0.0060  0.0742  0.0749  0.0556  0.06
Perlemuter 1986   26  0.7144  0.0018  0.1118  0.4918  0.3317  0.40
Poblocka 1999   28  0.7124  0.0031  0.1031  0.2248  0.0638  0.11
Rangell 2001   43  0.6757  0.0049  0.0938  0.0959  0.0551  0.07
Risler 1920   27  0.7136  0.0022  0.0823  0.3920  0.4515  0.42
Rosen 1989   39  0.6845  0.0048  0.0840  0.0821  0.4233  0.18
Rubinstein 1939   58  0.5737  0.0041  0.0557  0.0547  0.0558  0.05
Rubinstein 1952   17  0.7338  0.0017  0.1315  0.5214  0.5110  0.51
Rubinstein 1966   42  0.6746  0.0035  0.1134  0.1125  0.3132  0.18
Rummel 1943   55  0.596  0.0057  0.0558  0.0545  0.0559  0.05
Shebanova 2002   23  0.7258  0.0024  0.1119  0.4628  0.1728  0.28
Smith 1975   29  0.7017  0.0027  0.0927  0.3417  0.3024  0.32
Szpilman 1948   25  0.7247  0.0029  0.0929  0.2728  0.3525  0.31
Uninsky 1971   36  0.6959  0.0032  0.1132  0.2026  0.2029  0.20
Wasowski 1980   48  0.6448  0.0052  0.0654  0.0637  0.0845  0.07
Weissenberg 1971   19  0.7325  0.0019  0.0920  0.4124  0.2923  0.34
Average   3  0.8560  0.003  0.743  0.9025  0.367  0.57
Random 1    65  -0.0361  0.0065  0.0265  0.0239  0.0462  0.03
Random 2   64  0.0666  0.0064  0.0364  0.036  0.4735  0.12
Random 3   66  -0.0418  0.0066  0.0166  0.0140  0.0566  0.02

Note: To load data table give above into Excel, copy and paste the data into a text editor (such as WordPad) first, then copy the text in the editor and past into Excel. You should remove the "target" line from the data before pasting into Excel so that plotting graphs of the data is done properly.

Column descriptions

  • Performance:
  • 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
  • 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
  • 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
  • NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

  • red = strongly similar performance to target
  • orange = moderately similar performance
  • yellow = weakly similar performance
  • green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
  • white = dissimilar to target
  • blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).